Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, August 8, 2006 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: July 25, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. MinnHealth Clinic - Vacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 White Bear Avenue (Across the Street from the Maplewood Community Center) b. Hill-Murray School (Field House Addition) - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East c. Maple Ridge Retail Center (Remodel Exterior) - 2515 White Bear Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: . 9. Staff Presentations: a. Representation at the August 28, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items to be Discussed Include the MinnHealth Clinic and Hill-Murray School b. Reschedule September 12, 2006, CDRB Meeting Due to Primary Elections 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present at 6:30 p.m. Present until 7:05 p.m. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The applicant for Hill-Murray School asked if their item could be moved ahead of the proposal for MinnHealth on the agenda. That was fine with staff and the board members. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for July 25, 2006. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of July 25, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Shankar Abstention - Olson The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 2 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Hill-Murray School (Field House Addition> - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East Mr. Ekstrand said Rafferty, Rafferty Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill-Murray School, is requesting city approval of the design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. They want to put a 31 ,500-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and lock room space and renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible with the existing school and development in the area. None of the proposed changes nor the addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. The new field house will be constructed of precast concrete wall panels. These panels would have a raked and banded finish and would have several six-foot-by-six foot windows near the top. The plans note that these panels will be of a color to match the color of the brick in the school. In addition, the project plans show the contractor painting the existing field house a color similar to the campus brick color to match the exterior of the new addition. The existing field house was constructed with precast concrete wall panels and that the proposed addition would not be visible from any public street as it will be north of the existing school building. Board members did not have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Craig Rafferty of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects addressed the board. He said they are using the same tilt up prefabricated materials on the new building that match the existing building but in a different color. The materials would blend more closely with the brick on the school. They are painting the existing building in order to tie the complexes together. They are adding variations in the concrete panels which add subtle layers. He presented a sample of the building materials for the board. Chairperson Olson said the plans show the granite tile inserts in red and the color sample you presented is dark gray or black in color, which is correct? Mr. Rafferty said the granite tile insert would be a dark gray or black color as the sample I presented. Board member Ledvina said the existing building shows rain leaders and he asked if the new building would have rain leaders? Mr. Rafferty said there are internal rain leaders and the system is collected and drained into a holding pond. Chairperson Olson asked if the rain goes into the holding pond rather than into the sanitary sewer system? Mr. Rafferty said that is correct. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 3 Board member Ledvina asked if there would be any downspouts or scuppers? Mr. Rafferty said there are scuppers and an internal drain as well. Board member Shankar asked the applicant to address the landscaping. Mr. Rafferty said the landscaping is limited to clusters of river birch trees that wrap around the building on the south and east side. The west side of the building is covered right now by a single story metal link that connects the school and the field house. To the north are the gym bleachers and the football field and there really isn't room for landscaping there nor would it grown in that location. They are not planning on planting any bushes because they would die here. The school has long range plans that may call for more additions in the future so they prefer to keep the landscaping simple. Chairperson Olson asked if there would be additional trash collection on the site? Mr. Rafferty said the trash is picked up at the loading dock. The school is not really increasing the number of students so there should not be a need for a larger trash area. Chairperson Olson asked about the roof vents because she did not see them on the plans? Mr. Rafferty said the roof vents have not been clearly identified on the plans but they plan on screening the roof vents per the requirements of the city. They will be looking at new internal mechanical systems in the future but for now the vents will be screened by a wood fence. They will paint the mechanical units to match the building color as close as possible. Chairperson Olson asked about exterior lighting on the buildings? Mr. Rafferty said the exterior lighting would be wall pack lights over the new exit doors. There is a canopy over the doors and the lights will be part of the canopy. Chairperson Olson said with the lighting in the canopy the city requires that the bulb cannot be visible and requires a cut off so there is no glare. Mr. Rafferty said they would follow the city's lighting requirements. Board member Shankar asked if this project would require additional parking? Mr. Rafferty said the number of faculty and students isn't changing. This is just to provide better facilities for the students. Hill-Murray School has a project under construction now where they are adding an additional 44 parking spaces and a new driveway to eliminate congestion along Larpenteur Avenue to work out the best sequence of events to make things flow smoother. They are restriping the main student parking lot and rotating the parking so it is perpendicular and flows more logically throughout the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 4 Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans date-stamped June 28, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the field house addition at Hill-Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Steve Kummer's memo dated July 14, 2006. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for the site and for the building addition. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city and shall have a fence along the top. (d) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas. (3) The design of the ponding area and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. (a) Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. (b) Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The contractor shall install landscaping in the ponding area to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 (3) (4) (5) 5 That shows the manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the garden. It shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. Showing the birch clumps being at least 2'12 inches in diameter. d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. e. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. c. Post a "no left turn" sign at the easterly curb cut. d. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures around the units if they are visible from residential properties. e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal. f. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. g. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for the building addition. h. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). i. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 6 The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and residential properties. j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Compete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 10f the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through the sign permit process. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. b. MinnHealth Clinic - Vacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 White Bear Avenue (Across the Street from the Maplewood Community Center) Mr. Ekstrand said DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development, Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000-square-foot medical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic, proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two-story steel-framed structure with an exterior of brick and rock-face concrete block. Staff does not envision a problem with noise from this medical clinic. This clinic should actually be a very quiet neighbor with regular business hours. The property owner, Mr. Gene Berwald, said the clinic hours would be typical medical clinic hours of 8 to 5 or 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and possibly on Saturday mornings. Staff recommends that the landscape plan be revised to provide some over-story trees on the north side of the site to provide some taller screening for the abutting house to the north which fronts on White Bear Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 7 The evergreens proposed along the north side of the site should be a double row planted so that there is no less than a five-foot spacing of trees when viewed straight on (10 feet on center in each row). There are seven trees proposed along the front of the site. This isn't very many trees for a distance of nearly 400 feet. Staff feels that this number should be doubled. This would provide a tree spacing of a tree 28 to 30 feet on center. The applicant must install an in-ground lawn irrigation system according to the ordinance. An outdoor trash enclosure is proposed on the north side of the building. The enclosure would be rock-face concrete block to match the block on the building and would have a wooden gate closure. Board member Ledvina asked about the created wetland. He asked if the city is establishing the quality of the wetland and the appropriate buffer? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland that is being lost on this site. The watershed district is requiring that the applicant "replace the lesser-quality wetland on their site with a higher quality sedge-meadow wetland on the applicant's abutting lot to the south." He believes Tina Carstens with the watershed district said it would be a 25-foot buffer. Chairperson Olson said the wetland would be replaced on "this site" and would not be mitigated "off' site? Mr. Ekstrand said the wetland would be mitigated off site but in front of the property to the south, which is the same property owner and that is acceptable to the watershed district. Board member Schurke joined the CDRB meeting at 6:30 p.m. Board member Ledvina said there are 216 parking spaces proposed and city code requires 200. Did staff mention to the applicant they could have proof of parking? Mr. Ekstrand said the city recently approved the Kennard Professional Building in Legacy Village and the developer said the 5 per 1,000 parking spaces is not sufficient for a medical clinic. This medical facility building is about the same size as the Kennard Professional Building. Based on that, staff estimated this medical clinic would need this many parking spaces and they would actually like more parking spaces. Staff was satisfied with the 216 proposed parking spaces. Board member Ledvina said as long as the applicant has the parking they need than that is what is important. Board member Shankar said the plans show both a standing seam metal roof as well as horizontal siding, he asked if the applicant showed staff any colors? He is concerned that the standing seam and the horizontal siding is the same color. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant brought building material samples to show the CDRB so they can address that issue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 8 Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Randy Wagner, DSGW Architects in North St. Paul, (representing B.I.C. Development) addressed the board. He displayed the building materials board. He said they tried to use compatible colors that were used on the three influential buildings in the area, the Maplewood Community Center, Ramsey County Courthouse and the CVS Pharmacy. They will be using brick, concrete colored block, corrugated boxed siding, and have a standing seam metal roof over the barrel vaulted canopy in front. It will be a two-story glass building with a two-story lobby with two canopies. The fascia board is brick red across the face which is also used on the sun screen on the south side of the building. The corrugated metal is dark anodized bronze and is the same color as the aluminum store front. Board member Shankar said the applicant referred to three influential buildings in the neighborhood but some of them have anodized aluminum for the horizontal siding and here you are proposing an anodized bronze color. Mr. Wagner said they want to use similar colors and building materials but still have their own identity with this building to change things up a bit. They want this building to blend in but be different, that eliminates confusion regarding who owns the building too. Board member Schurke asked about the sun screen on the south side? He asked if it will be an architectural sun screen or is it functional? Mr. Wagner said it is a functional sun screen. He showed the CDRB the elevation with the sun screen on the south side of the building as well as the other elevations to show how everything will correspond together. He also passed the building materials board around for the CDRB to review. Chairperson Olson asked about the landscaping and staffs request for additional landscaping on the north side? Mr. Wagner said the additional landscaping recommended should not be an issue. Chairperson Olson said the plan shows plantings around the base of the elevations and she asked if those were called out on the landscaping plan. Mr. Wagner said for the most part those will be simple foundation plantings. There isn't a lot of green space here; it's basically a buffer between the buildings and the lawn. Board member Schurke asked about additional strategies in terms of storm water mitigation that could be used here but are not shown? Mr. Ekstrand said engineering and the applicant will have to take another review of the storm water mitigation. Today it came up that the city engineer said that the small ponds proposed between the parking lot and the street would not be effective and not preferred. When White Bear Avenue gets widened in about five years those ponds would have to be removed so that will have to be looked at again before this goes to the city council. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 9 Board member Schurke asked what the intent was regarding the property on the west side of this parcel? Mr. Wagner said he wasn't sure what the developer plans to do with that parcel. Mr. Ekstrand said he had asked the same question and the developer said he doesn't know yet. Staff would suggest not disturbing the land at this point. He would hate to see the land regraded because often times there isn't the best success getting the ground restored so if they don't need to disturb the land, staff would suggest leaving it alone until there is a proposal. Board member Schurke said he didn't see a sidewalk on the plans parallel to White Bear Avenue. However, the city extended the sidewalk underneath Highway 36 to reach the intersection and his strong preference is to figure out a way to accommodate pedestrian access to this clinic site because of the adjacency to the Metro Transit system. It is difficult to walk to this site unless you walk on the street which could be dangerous. He asked if the applicant would be willing to construct a sidewalk here? Mr. Wagner said you bring up a very good point and he doesn't believe the applicant would have a problem constructing a sidewalk here along White Bear Avenue. It would only help the businesses within this building. Board member Schurke said he likes the idea of pushing the storm water mitigation to the west side of the property and you can always address modifications later to accommodate future development on the south side. He appreciates the effort that has been made on the design of this building. This is a very pleasing building and he commended the developer for adding a sun screen on the building. He likes the location and the adjacency to White Bear Avenue. The traffic comments that have been raised by the neighbors are legitimate. There are times when it's very difficult to safely enter this stretch of White Bear Avenue. Because of the difficulty getting in and out of this site he would recommend not blocking the view in any way with monument signage or any other obstruction that would make it even harder to get onto the roadway safely because the traffic moves very quickly on this stretch of road. Chairperson Olson said she would highly recommend the construction of the sidewalk. Mr. Ekstrand said staffs only concern is that within the next five years White Bear Avenue will be widened and if we require the applicant to install a sidewalk, and the road is widened, it would need to be removed. Board member Schurke said there could be a conversation with the county to find out what the dimension should be to keep a buffer between where the road may be widened and the placement of the sidewalk to be constructed. The pedestrian access is very important here and five years is a long time to wait for a sidewalk just because we are waiting to see how White Bear Avenue will be reconstructed. Chairperson Olson asked if it would be appropriate to recommend the wetlands be relocated behind the building? Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 10 Mr. Ekstrand said that seems to be a likely option. The board may want to suggest that the drainage plan be subject to the approval of the city engineer and the ponds be relocated in areas most appropriate. The bottom line is the city engineer would have to approve the grading and drainage plan and the location of the ponds. Mr. Wagner said the signage for the building is not shown on the plans but there will be a monument sign. The design and detail of the sign is not yet complete. The sign will be low to the ground and identify the address and the tenants within the building. Board member Schurke asked if Mr. Wagner was aware of the Maplewood sign code? Mr. Wagner said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this development? Nobody came forward. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date-stamped July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 3. Obtain a permit from the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. If needed the applicant shall prepare a wetland delineation and full mitiqation plan. These activities shall be completed bv a competent wetland specialist. The plan shall incorporate the correspondinq buffer zone required for the new wetland buffer qiven the specific tvpe of wetland be constructed. 4. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the mitigated wetland and any contiguous wetlands if needed by the watershed district. Wetland signs shall be spaced every 100 feet and shall comply with the city's approved sign design requirements. 5. All wetland and drainage and rainwater ponds shall be planted with plantings as required by the watershed district and the city engineer. 6. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and the watershed district for the maintenance of ponds. 7. Revise the landscaping plan to provide for an evenly spaced/staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 11 The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 8. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 9. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 10. The roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of all residential properties. 11. All site lights must be properly screened or shielded so the lenses and bulbs are not visible off site from any home. 12. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 13. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 14. The applicant shall inteorate a 6 foot wide sidewalk into the site parallel to White Bear Avenue. The applicant shall meet with the countv and city staff to determine it's proper location. 15. The applicant shall consider and review with the citv's enoineerino staff storm water mitioation options other than what is shown on the plans currentlv for the purposes for permeable pavino or rainwater oardens to be located on the west side of the propertv or where appropriate relative to the development. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. c. Maple Ridge Retail Center (Remodel Exterior) - 2515 White Bear Avenue Mr. Ekstrand said Doug Olson of Cy-Con, Inc. is proposing to remodel the Mapleridge Center at 2515 White Bear Avenue. Remodeling includes upgrading the fa9ade with new brick, EIFS, and glass. City code requires major construction projects on an existing commercial building to be approved by the CDRB. A major construction project is defined as any exterior work on a commercial or multi-family building or site which is over $200,000. The proposed remodeling at the Mapleridge Center is over $200,000, and therefore must be approved by the CDRB. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 12 The remodeling of the Mapleridge Center includes the removal of the green metal seam canopy and addition of the following materials on the front sides of the buildings: 1. Decorative brick piers. 2. EIFS above the windows. 3. Decorative EIFS cornices on top of the parapet walls. 4. Glass spandrel storefront band above existing windows. 5. Two new styles of canopies above the windows to include prefinished metal canopy and fabric awnings. 6. Decorative wall-mounted lights to be located on the brick piers. 7. Painting the CMUs beige with brown colored accent bands. The side and rear elevations, which are currently burnished, and rockface CMUs, will be painted beige with brown colored accent bands. Staff finds the proposed remodeling of the existing elevations a welcome and attractive addition. Chairperson Olson asked if these pampas wall mount lights were going to be used throughout the complex? Mr. Ekstrand said he believed so but the applicant could address that. Chairperson Olson said Caribou Coffee has a different light fixture and she was concerned how the light fixture styles would look together. Board member Schurke asked if there was a sidewalk that ran east/west and north/south? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Chairperson Olson said she saw a woman taking photos of a concrete section of sidewalk that was uneven in front of one of the tenant spaces. It may have been a handicapped accessibility issue and she asked if the tenant was responsible for taking care of some thing like that or does the property manager take care of something like that? Mr. Ekstrand said this may a good time to bring matters like this up with the applicant. Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant was going to remove the signs from the building exterior and replace the same signs after the building is done being remodeled? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Shann Finwall said there were no sign concerns or issues and staff assumes the approved sign criteria is still going to fit with the new building fa<;ade to achieve the sign uniformity. Board member Schurke asked if there were any plans to update or change the monument sign on White Bear Avenue? Mr. Ekstrand said no. Board members were disappointed in that. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 13 Board member Ledvina said he wants to make sure when the applicant takes the signs down to do the building exterior remodeling and then replaces the signs that they will fit properly. Mr. Ekstrand said he's sure the applicant would want the same thing to occur. Board member Schurke said he assumes staff generates the maps in the staff reports? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Board member Schurke said he would propose for future reference that staff indicate on the plans where pedestrian walkways are located. Mr. Ekstrand said staff will certainly do that if they are able. The GIS mapping system mayor may not have that information available to use. Board member Schurke said staff could also add dashes by hand on the plans to represent where the pedestrian walkways are located. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, addressed the board. REEF, the company who manages the strip mall, has approached them to do an extreme makeover on this strip mall. This will help to attract new tenants. The lighting is consistent throughout the strip mall except for Caribou Coffee. Caribou Coffee has their own style and has a signature look to their stores which makes excitement in the shopping center for tenants to show their individuality. We are adding height to the building and changing out some ornamental light fixtures to the sidewalk. They recently remodeled the Eagan Town Center strip mall and it turned out fabulous. The new tenant interest has been overwhelming after the makeover and that is the intention here. REEF has corrected the sidewalk issue Chairperson Olson spoke of which was caused by the freeze, thaw process. Board member Ledvina asked what the height of the sign bands would be? Ms. Anderson said to put it in scale the cornices are at 2'8". They measured every sign and have placed it on the elevations and we guaranteed the board that the signs will all fit properly when replaced on the building exterior. The letters are all individually mounted which is a class C signage pattern. They will paint out the raceway the letters are mounted to and have an exact paint match to the EIFS background so that will class things up. They will add the landscaping as required and get the old landscaping plan from Shann Finwall so they can properly replace the landscaping that died. There are some existing overhead doors with internal trash enclosures and they plan on having more frequent trash pickups so they can have smaller trash dumpsters so many of those will be changed out and the external units will be screened with concrete block and metal opaque gates. Board member Schurke asked if the applicant plans on doing anything with the monument sign? Ms. Anderson said not at this point. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 14 Board member Schurke asked if there were plans in the near future to change the monument sign? Ms. Anderson said not to her knowledge. Board member Ledvina said there are awnings shown on the elevations and he asked if the colors would be the same as what is shown on the plan? Ms. Anderson said yes. They have sent the color selections to the tenants so that is what you will see. Board member Schurke asked if there were any other improvements intended for the parking lot? Ms. Anderson said no. Chairperson Olson asked if they had building samples to show the CDRB? Ms. Anderson said yes. She reviewed the building materials with the CDRB. Board member Ledvina commended the applicant for the work they have done planning this renovation. This will be a very nice project and a great addition to the community and we thank you for that. Board member Schurke said he was still curious why the applicant would not make changes to the monument sign? He said in this particular case he doesn't believe a monument sign is needed. Ms. Carolyn Inglis, representing REEF, the management company of the strip mall, Atlanta, Georgia. She said the tenants in the strip mall want the monument sign. Rainbow Foods is remodeling the interior of their store. The landlord is also contributing to the cost of their remodel. This, combined with the building exteriors, will be a tremendous improvement but is marginal in terms of return on their money for the owner. The monument sign will be painted on the aluminum frame in a compatible color but at this time the sign will remain. It is also a funding problem after spending the money on the building exterior renovation and contributing to the interior remodel of Rainbow Foods. They ran into the same situation remodeling the Eagan Town Center and plan on remodeling their monument sign next year due to lack of funding this year. They plan on doing the same thing in Maplewood for this freestanding sign. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped July 10, 2006, for the Mapleridge Center located at 2515 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 15 a. Landscape plan which shows the following: The location of the existing landscaping and the addition of at least 33 new trees on the site. In particular the landscape plan should show several 6-foot-high, Black Hills spruce (or an alternative species of evergreen tree) to be planted on the west side of Rainbow Foods, in between the parking lot and the property line. The evergreen trees will help create additional screening of the back side of the building from the residential properties to the west. Also, all proposed deciduous trees should be at least 2'12 inches in diameter and all ornamental trees should be at least 1 Y. inches in diameter. b. Site plan and elevations which show the following. The expansion of the existing dumpster enclosure or the addition of new dumpster enclosures along the back side of the building. The dumpster enclosure or the addition of new dumpster enclosures along the back side of the building. The dumpster enclosures should be designed to screen all trash and recycling dumpsters on the site, should be 100 percent opaque, at least 6 feet in height with a closable gate, and should be constructed of materials which are compatible to the building. c. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required landscaping and dumpster enclosure improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before final inspection and approval of the major construction project: a. Install all required landscaping. b. Construct the required dumpster enclosures. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow a final inspection and approval of the major construction project if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. Any new signs installed on the site must obtain a separate sign permit. Any major changes to signage on the site may require approval of a comprehensive sign plan amendment by the community design review board. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 16 Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. This item does not need to go to the city council. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting The only CDRB item to discuss is Carpet Court at 1685 Arcade Street. Board members felt the annual tour was phenomenal, they enjoyed seeing the south end of Maplewood. They also appreciated the coach bus and the box dinner. They would have liked to have more city council representation. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Schurke will be the CDRB representative at the August 28, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include White Bear Avenue Family Health Care CenterNacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 White Bear Avenue (Across the street from the Maplewood Community Center) and Hill-Murray School (Field House Addition) - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. b. Reschedule the CDRB meeting of Tuesday, September 12, 2006, due to the primary elections. Because John Hinzman was absent and Ananth Shankar had to leave early, the board decided to wait to select a date to reschedule the CDRB meeting. Matt Ledvina recommended holding one CDRB meeting in September combining the two meeting dates together if possible. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.